Jump to content

Challenger takes no.2 spot


fordtech1

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.freep.com/amp/3495485002

GM doesn’t understand. You can make the vehicles to show best on paper. But you have to make what people want. It’s all about the market and what people like. Otherwise why would this old low tech heavy vehicle sell so well? 

I personally like the newest Camaro over the challenger. However, I must be the minority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chevy made the Camaro for the die hard Camaro faithful and Al Oppenheiser. It's has an expensive platform that handles really well but rides a bit rough. It's also a touch smaller than Mustang is especially rear seating (and the Mustang is not good either). Last but not least, it difficult to see out of.  However, it's great track car and has great numbers around Nurbring.

NEWSFLASH: The masses don't buy a track car. This is like the 90's all over again. They totally screwed the pooch on being a daily driver.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mackinaw said:

The newly-designed Silverado is now #3, having been passed by Ram; and now the Camaro drops to #3 behind the Challenger.  

GM sure is on top of things.

rperez will be along shortly to make excuses explain everything.

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can’t say gm isn’t doing anything. They are just missing the mark. They can’t seem to get what the market wants. The market is so finicky. Seems like their motto is throw lots of cash and see it if sticks. If that doesn’t work, spend more cash on smear commercials, then throw more money at it. If that’s not right, throw cash on the hoods. 

Oh yeah, spend millions and years, dating back to EV-1, develop a good plug in hybrid like the volt. Redesign it, oh and cancel it. 

I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m missing something here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ice-capades said:

My understanding was that the only reason GM kept Buick was because it was such a strong selling brand in China. 

But they don’t need to exist in the US to exist in China. For the most part they don’t even really share models. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2019 at 4:46 PM, fordtech1 said:

You can’t say gm isn’t doing anything. They are just missing the mark. They can’t seem to get what the market wants.

That's an excellent description.  It's like they just throw a bunch of darts and see what sticks.

What I suspect happens is somebody says "hey here's an idea for a vehicle", they come up with a positive business case and pitches it to upper mgt who signs off on it.  Like Solstice and Sky.    The business case may include inflated sales projections or other projects that never happen.  Or the costs are understated.   There doesn't seem to be any corporate level oversight and long term planning that looks at all projects from the corporate standpoint.   Volt is a perfect example - why didn't they expand that technology to other vehicles (as much as I gripe about the technology being from a 1950s locomotive it was still a plug in hybrid with a 50 mile range)?   It's like a bunch of individuals and separate teams working on their own stuff and going after magazine awards and bragging rights instead of profitable sales.

 

Ford has been a lot better managing the portfolio and managing cost and waste but it also means they play it too conservative sometimes.

Ideally you'd have a good mix and I think that's what we're seeing with Hackett.   Consolidated shared platforms and technology and using design and performance to differentiate and create exciting vehicles.    Splitting Escape into 2 completely different vehicles instead of just making 3 or 4 copies of the same vehicle for different brands.  Creating a Bronco sub brand.  But doing it on shared platforms with shared technology - maximizing ATPs and minimizing costs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

At some point I believe that maximizing ATPs philosophy will come back to haunt them. That's not just a ford problem, it's an industry problem. There's a bubble there that will burst at some point. 

That doesn't mean huge ATPs necessarily.   But look at Escape and Scout.  Escape is very nice but also a generic looking CUV with lots of competition.  Scout will appeal to a much smaller demographic but for those who do like it there isn't much competition outside Jeep and a few other one off designs.   So whereas the average ATP on Escape might be $24K they can probably get $28K or $30K or even higher on Scout.   Sales will be lower than Escape but a much higher profit margin.

They're not abandoning affordably priced vehicles, just making more vehicles that are unique and exciting with styling, features and power that make them stand out against the competition and that naturally drives higher ATPs.

It's what they've been doing with F150 and Mustang for years.  You can get a $23K F150 or a $75K F150.  Same with mustang.   Electrification, super high performance, off road looks and capability and drop dead gorgeous styling inside and out are all keys that have already started paying off for Ford and Hackett seems to be supporting and pushing that even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't all of that change if interest rates keep going up? At some point those more expensive trim levels are either going to have to drop in price or people will have to start buying lower trim levels. I just dont see how this is sustainable long term. 

Edited by fuzzymoomoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Doesn't all of that change if interest rates keep going up? At some point those more expensive trim levels are either going to have to drop in price or people will have to start buying lower trim levels. I just dont see how this is sustainable long term. 

People who spend more on vehicles tend to be far less affected by interest rates or gas prices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, akirby said:

........  Volt is a perfect example - why didn't they expand that technology to other vehicles (as much as I gripe about the technology being from a 1950s locomotive it was still a plug in hybrid with a 50 mile range)?   It's like a bunch of individuals and separate teams working on their own stuff and going after magazine awards and bragging rights instead of profitable sales.

 

Ford has been a lot better managing the portfolio and managing cost and waste but it also means they play it too conservative sometimes.

Ideally you'd have a good mix and I think that's what we're seeing with Hackett.   Consolidated shared platforms and technology and using design and performance to differentiate and create exciting vehicles.    Splitting Escape into 2 completely different vehicles instead of just making 3 or 4 copies of the same vehicle for different brands.  Creating a Bronco sub brand.  But doing it on shared platforms with shared technology - maximizing ATPs and minimizing costs.  

Agree.  My son had a Volt for over 5 years (sold for a Tesla 3).  His average mpg was over 200. Total maintenance 2 oil changes, 1 air filter and a set of tires.  If GM would have put that drive train in a stylish CUV it would sell like hotcakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised to read this.  The Camaro will forever be linked to the cartoonish introduction in the "Transformers" movie.  What would have been kind of cool as a one-off hot rod was too compromised as a daily driver.  I've spent about 1,000 miles behind the wheel of one and can say it's a great driving machine: a great car to be seen in, but a lousy car to see out of.  You sit in a deeply recessed bucket that's further marred by gun slit windows and wide roof pillars.  While decently spacious in the front seats, there is an amazing absence of storage for, well, anything.  Just try to find a place to plug in and store your phone.  I dare you.  But, once you fire it up and hit the road? I'm sure it would make great track numbers.  Still, how many times do you take your car to the track?  The vast majority will never see a track. By comparison, the retro Challenger is half-decently spacious and has a usable backseat.  Not a bad compromise.  Just don't tack it to a track (unless it's a strip). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2019 at 4:33 PM, akirby said:

rperez will be along shortly to make excuses explain everything.

Hahaha. The explanations are all in the article linked in the OP. Nothing for me to add. Second to last paragraph in the article sums it up.

"Who has invested money the wisest and made the greatest return? The answer is easily Fiat Chrysler,” McElroy said. “I can assure you FCA is going to look at how little money they’ve put into the car and how many they’re selling."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...